July 2011

07/15/2011

N.J. Schweitzer and Michael J. SaksArizona State University

Abstract:

The introduction of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has given rise to fears that neuroimagery presented by an expert witness might inordinately influence jurors' evaluations of the defendant. In this experiment, a diverse sample of 1,170 community members from throughout the U.S. evaluated a written mock trial in which psychological, neuropsychological, neuroscientific, and neuroimage-based expert evidence was presented in support of a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) defense. No evidence of an independent influence of neuroimagery was found. Overall, neuroscience-based evidence was found to be more persuasive than psychological and anecdotal family history evidence. These effects were consistent across different insanity standards. Despite the non-influence of neuroimagery, however, jurors who were not provided with a neuroimage indicated that they believed neuroimagery would have been the most helpful kind of evidence in their evaluations of the defendant.

07/12/2011

Hon. Stephen G. Breyer: “[c]utting-edge neuroscience has shown that ‘virtual violence in video game playing results in those neural patterns that are considered characteristic for aggressive cognition and behavior’”

The U.S. Supreme Court recently invalidated (7-2) a California law that banned the sale of violent videogames to children. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, held in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assoc., that videogames were subject to First Amendment “speech” protection. In dissent, Justice Breyer noted that “[c]utting-edge neuroscience has shown that ‘virtual violence in video game playing results in those neural patterns that are considered characteristic for aggressive cognition and behavior.’” He argued the Court should defer, for this reason among others, to the elected legislature’s conclusion that the videogames in question were likely to harm children.